Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Sender: kvalo=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 5F9E6C433C6
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
To:     Luca Coelho <luca@coelho.fi>
Cc:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>,
        Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com>,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iwlwifi: Fix softirq/hardirq disabling in iwl_pcie_enqueue_hcmd()
References: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.2103021125430.12405@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
        <nycvar.YFH.7.76.2103080925230.12405@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
        <nycvar.YFH.7.76.2103130242460.12405@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
        <87h7lfbowr.fsf@tynnyri.adurom.net>
        <nycvar.YFH.7.76.2103131642290.12405@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
        <f103b4a29b7c1942f091bd7b90d7a927d72c20a2.camel@coelho.fi>
Date:   Sat, 13 Mar 2021 19:06:17 +0200
In-Reply-To: <f103b4a29b7c1942f091bd7b90d7a927d72c20a2.camel@coelho.fi> (Luca
        Coelho's message of "Sat, 13 Mar 2021 18:32:26 +0200")
Message-ID: <87zgz7t246.fsf@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Luca Coelho <luca@coelho.fi> writes:

> On Sat, 2021-03-13 at 16:43 +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2021, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> 
>> > > > > From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > It's possible for iwl_pcie_enqueue_hcmd() to be called with hard IRQs 
>> > > > > disabled (e.g. from LED core). We can't enable BHs in such a situation.
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > Turn the unconditional BH-enable/BH-disable code into 
>> > > > > hardirq-disable/conditional-enable.
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > This fixes the warning below.
>> > > > 
>> > > > Hi,
>> > > > 
>> > > > friendly ping on this one ... 
>> > > 
>> > > Luca,
>> > > 
>> > > Johannes is telling me that he merged this patch internally, but I have no 
>> > > idea what is happening to it ... ?
>> > > 
>> > > The reported splat is a clear bug, so it should be fixed one way or the 
>> > > other.
>> > 
>> > Should I take this to wireless-drivers?
>> 
>> I can't speak for the maintainers, but as far as I am concerned, it 
>> definitely is a 5.12 material, as it fixes real scheduling bug.
>
> Yes, please take this to w-d.  We have a similar patch internally, but
> there's a backlog and it will take me some time to get to it.  I'll
> resolve eventual conflicts when time comes.

Ok, can I have your ack for patchwork?

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches